Could HPV Testing on Self-collected Samples Be Routinely Used in an Organized Cervical Screening Program? A Modeled Analysis

Prevalence and correlates of Human Papillomavirus infection in females from Southern Province, Zambia: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is strongly associated with cervical cancer with almost all cases being associated with the infection. Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women in Zambia and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide. However, there is limited data on the burden and associated factors of HPV in sub-Saharan Africa. This study therefore aimed to determine the prevalence and correlates of HPV infection in the Southern province of Zambia.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study conducted at Livingstone University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) among 4,612 women from different districts of the southern province being screened for HPV infection between September 2021 and August 2022. Demographic and clinical data were collected from an existing laboratory programmatic database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the factors associated with HPV infection.

RESULTS

The study participants had a median age of 39 years [interquartile range (IQR) 30, 47]. The prevalence of HPV infection was 35.56% (95%CI). At multivariable analysis, the factors associated with a positive HPV result were younger age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-0.99; p. value 0.001), having provider collected sample (AOR 2.15; 95%CI 1.66-2.79; p. value <0.001) and living with HIV (AOR 1.77; 95%CI 1.22-2.55; p. value <0.002).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of HPV in women in the southern province of Zambia is high, and likely influenced by age and HIV status. Additionally, the outcome of the HPV test is affected by the sample collection method. Therefore, there is a necessity to enhance HPV and cervical cancer screening, especially among people with HIV.

Direct mailing of HPV self-sampling kits to women aged 50-65 non-participating in cervical screening in the Czech Republic

BACKGROUND

A population-based cervical cancer screening programme is implemented in the Czech Republic. However, participation is insufficient among women over 50 years. This study aimed to estimate the potential improvement in participation through directly mailed HPV self-sampling kits (HPVssk) compared with standard invitation letters in women aged 50-65 non-participating in screening.

METHODS

The study recruited 1564 eligible women (no cervical cancer screening in the last 3 years or more, no previous treatment associated with cervical lesions or cervical cancer). Eight hundred women were mailed with an HPVssk (HPVssk group), and 764 women were sent a standard invitation letter (control group) inviting them to a routine screening (Pap test). The primary outcome was a comparison of the overall participation rate between study groups using a binominal regression model.

RESULTS

The participation rate in the HPVssk group was 13.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-15.9%; 7.4% of women returned the HPVssk and 6.0% attended gynaecological examination] and 5.0% (95% CI 3.6-6.8%) in the control group. Using the binominal regression model, the difference between the groups was estimated as 7.6% (95% CI 5.0-10.2%; P < 0.001). In the HPVssk group, 22% of women who returned HPVssk had a positive result and 70% of them underwent a follow-up examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with traditional invitation letters, the direct mailing of the HPVssk achieved a significantly higher participation rate, along with a notable HPV positivity rate among HPVssk responders. This approach offers a potentially viable method for engaging women who have not yet attended a cervical screening programme.

Cervical cancer screening activity in the Capital Region of Denmark before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Denmark went through various COVID-19 pandemic restrictions including periodic lockdowns from March 2020 to January 2022. All cancer screening programs were kept operational, yet access to clinicians for cervical screening was at times limited. We assessed the impact of the pandemic on cervical cancer screening activity in the Capital Region of Denmark.

METHODS

Cervical screening activity was defined as regular screening by invitation, opportunistic screening, and screening participation by HPV self-sampling. Activity was monitored during and post-pandemic and compared relatively to a 3-year pre-pandemic reference.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The activity of cervical cancer screening was initially affected by the pandemic lockdowns, but increased activity during summer 2020 partly compensated this effect. Regular screening activity decreased 8.4% in 2020 and returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021. During 2022 restrictions were removed and the decrease in activity was recorded to be 2.3%. Opportunistic screening activity was reduced by 14.3% in 2020 and 12.6% in 2021. A continued post-pandemic opportunistic screening activity reduction of 18.5% was observed, possibly related to changed patterns of primary health care use introduced during the pandemic. Screening by HPV self-sampling increased from 17.1% in the pre-pandemic period to 21.2% during the pandemic. Significantly more acceptance was recorded amongst older women (p < 0.0001). This increase mirrors the decrease in total clinician collected sample activity during the pandemic, where an increased reduction by age was observed. Post-pandemic HPV self-sampling participation decreased to 12.8%, possible reflecting a temporarily changed composition and motivation in the group of women invited for self-sampling.

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing health care. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65 years, out of date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally qualified health centers in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the standard-of-care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for fecal immunochemical tests and human papillomavirus testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes.

RESULTS

Cancer screening was higher in the self-sampling arm than the standard-of-care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio = 31.32, 95% confidence interval = 5.20 to 289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, odds ratio = 72.03, 95% confidence interval = 9.15 to 1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

STUDY00015480.

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.

Molecular triaging options for women testing HPV positive with self-collected samples

We review developments in molecular triaging options for women who test positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) on self-collected samples in the context of cervical cancer elimination. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends hrHPV screening as the primary test for cervical screening due to its high sensitivity compared to other screening tests. However, when hrHPV testing is used alone for treatment decisions, a proportion of women of childbearing age receive unnecessary treatments. This provides the incentive to optimize screening regimes to minimize the risk of overtreatment in women of reproductive age. Molecular biomarkers can potentially enhance the accuracy and efficiency of screening and triage. HrHPV testing is currently the only screening test that allows triage with molecular methods using the same sample. Additionally, offering self-collected hrHPV tests to women has been reported to increase screening coverage. This creates an opportunity to focus health resources on linking screen-positive women to diagnosis and treatment. Adding an additional test to the screening algorithm (a triage test) may improve the test's positive predictive value (PPV) and offer a better balance of benefits and risks for women. Conventional triage methods like cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) cannot be performed on self-collected samples and require additional clinic visits and subjective interpretations. Molecular triaging using methods like partial and extended genotyping, methylation tests, detection of E6/E7 proteins, and hrHPV viral load in the same sample as the hrHPV test may improve the prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and invasive cancer, offering more precise, efficient, and cost-effective screening regimes. More research is needed to determine if self-collected samples are effective and cost-efficient for diverse populations and in comparison to other triage methods. The implementation of molecular triaging could improve screening accuracy and reduce the need for multiple clinical visits. These important factors play a crucial role in achieving the global goal of eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem.

Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly

Self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has the potential to increase the uptake of cervical screening among underscreened women and will likely form a crucial part of the WHO's strategy to eliminate cervical cancer by 2030. In high-income countries with long-standing, organised cervical screening programmes, self-collection is increasingly becoming available as a routine offer for women regardless of their screening histories, including under- and well-screened women. For these contexts, a validated microsimulation model determined that adding self-collection to clinician collection is likely to be cost-effective on the condition that it meets specific thresholds relating to (1) uptake and (2) sensitivity for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). We used these thresholds to review the 'early-adopter' programme-level evidence with a mind to determine how well and how consistently they were being met. The available evidence suggested some risk to overall programme performance in the situation where low uptake among underscreened women was accompanied by a high rate of substituting clinician sampling with self-collection among well-screened women. Risk was further compounded in a situation where the slightly reduced sensitivity of self-sampling vs clinician sampling for the detection of CIN2+ was accompanied with lack of adherence to a follow-up triage test that required a clinician sample. To support real-world programmes on their pathways toward implementation and to avoid HPV self-collection being introduced as a screening measure in good faith but with counterproductive consequences, we conclude by identifying a range of mitigations and areas worthy of research prioritisation.

HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature

Identifying and reaching women at higher risk for cervical cancer is all-important for achieving the ambitious endpoints set in 2020 by the WHO for global cervical cancer control by 2030. HPV-based (vaginal) self-sampling (SS) represents a cost-effective screening strategy, which has been successfully implemented during the last decade both in affluent and constrained settings. Among other advantages, SS strategies offer convenience, diminished costs, flexibility to obtain a sample in the office or home, avoiding a pelvic exam and uncomfortable appointment with a healthcare professional, as well as social and cultural acceptability. SS implementation has been globally boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In pragmatic terms, social distancing, local lockdowns, discontinuation of clinics and reallocation of human and financial resources challenged established clinician-based screening; self-collection strategies apparently surpassed most obstacles, representing a viable and flexible alternative. With time, sufficient reassuring data has accumulated regarding specially designed SS devices, aspects of sample preparation, transport and storage and, importantly, optimization of validated PCR-based HPV testing platforms for self-collected specimens. Suboptimal rates of clinical follow-up post-SS screening, as well as overtreatment with reliance solely on molecular assays, have both been documented and remain concerning. Therefore, effective strategies are still required to ensure linkage to follow-up testing and management following positive SS results by trained health professionals with knowledge of HPV biology and management algorithms. Because of the prolonged SS screening intervals, implementation data are limited regarding subsequent screening rounds of SS-screened individuals; however, these are accumulating gradually. With further refinement of assays and validation of novel biomarkers in self-collected samples, there is a clear potential for increasing SS accuracy and PPV. The potential differentiation of self-collection protocols for vaccinated versus non-vaccinated individuals also represents an open issue. In conclusion, HPV-based self-collection techniques can effectively address limited uptake alongside other conventional cervical screening drawbacks; however, assays, logistics and infrastructures need further optimization to increase the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SS approaches.

HPV-based Cervical Cancer Screening on Self-samples in the Netherlands: Challenges to Reach Women and Test Performance Questions

In 2017, cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands switched from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing using the validated PCR-based cobas 4800. Women could order and subsequently received a free self-sampling kit (Evalyn Brush) at their home address instead of clinician sampling. In the laboratory, the shipped brush was placed into 20 mL of PreservCyt fluid, before testing. In the first 2 years of the new program, only 7% of screening tests were performed on a self-sample. Those who chose self-sampling versus clinician sampling were more likely to have never been screened previously and differed also with respect to sociodemographic factors. Subsequent more active promotion and increasing the ease to obtain kits increased the proportion opting for self-sampling (16% in 2020). HPV positivity and detection rate of precancer (CIN3+) were lower in the self-sampling compared with the clinician-sampling group (adjusted ORs of 0.65 and 0.86, respectively). Although population differences may partially explain these results, self-samples may have been too dilute, thereby reducing the analytic and clinical sensitivity. The Dutch findings demonstrate the importance of optimizing outreach, specimen handling and testing protocols for self-samples to effectively screen the target population and reach in particular the women at highest risk for cervical cancer. See related article by Aitken et al., p. 183.

"So, if she wasn't aware of it, then how would everybody else out there be aware of it?"-Key Stakeholder Perspectives on the Initial Implementation of Self-Collection in Australia's Cervical Screening Program: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes.

RESULTS

Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

The socioeconomic gradient in mortality from ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancer in Australian women, 2001-2018: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Socio-economic (SE) status is closely linked to health status and the mechanisms of this association are complex. One important adverse effect of SE disadvantage is vulnerability to cancer and cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Australia.

AIMS

We aimed to estimate the effect of SE status on mortality rates from ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

National mortality data were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the calendar years from 2001 to 2018, inclusive. Individual deaths were grouped by the ABS Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage. Population data were obtained to provided denominators allowing calculation of mortality rates (deaths per 100 000 women aged 30-79 years). Statistical analyses performed included tabulating point-estimates of mortality rates and their changes over time and modelling the trends of rates using maximum likelihood method.

RESULTS

Age-standardised mortality rates for ovarian and cervical cancer fell over the study period but increased for endometrial cancer. There was clear evidence of a SE gradient in the mortality rate for all three cancers. This SE gradient increased over the study period for ovarian and cervical cancer but remained unchanged for endometrial cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Women at greater SE disadvantage have higher rates of death from the commonest gynaecological cancers and this gradient has not reduced over the last two decades. After the COVID-19 pandemic efforts must be redoubled to ensure that Australians already at risk of ill health do not face even greater risks because of their circumstances.

Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on secondary prevention of cervical cancer globally.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, formal consensus-based process, and modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines was conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus.

RESULTS

This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies vary by the following setting: maximal: age 25-65 years, every 5 years; enhanced: age 30-65 years, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: age 30-49 years, every 10 years; basic: age 30-49 years, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is used to determine treatment eligibility; in other settings, genotyping with cytology or cytology alone is used to determine treatment. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are obtained; in other settings, abnormal triage results followed by colposcopy is recommended. For basic settings, treatment options are thermal ablation or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure or ablation is recommended; with a 12-month follow-up in all settings. Women who are HIV-positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis, twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

National experience in the first two years of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening in an HPV vaccinated population in Australia: observational study

OBJECTIVE

To review the first two years of the primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening programme in an HPV vaccinated population.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

3 745 318 women with a primary HPV test between 1 December 2017 and 31 December 2019; most women aged <40 years had previously been offered vaccination against HPV16 and HPV18.

INTERVENTIONS

Primary HPV screening with referral if HPV16 or HPV18 (HPV16/18) positive and triage with liquid based cytology testing (threshold atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) for women who were positive for high risk HPV types other than 16/18. A 12 month follow-up HPV test was recommended in triaged women with a negative or low grade cytology result, with referral if they tested positive for any high risk HPV type at follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of women who had attended for their first HPV screening test, tested positive, and were referred for colposcopy; and short term risk of detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse, CIN grade 3 or worse, or cancer.

RESULTS

54.6% (n=3 507 281) of an estimated 6 428 677 eligible women aged 25-69 had undergone their first HPV test by the end of 2019. Among those attending for routine screening, positivity for HPV16/18 and for HPV types not 16/18 was, respectively, 2.0% and 6.6% in women aged 25-69 (n=3 045 844) and 2.2% and 13.3% in highly vaccinated cohorts of women aged 25-34 (n=768 362). Colposcopy referral (ages 25-69 years) was 3.5%, increasing to an estimated 6.2% after accounting for women who had not yet had a 12 month repeat test. Cervical cancer was detected in 0.98% (456/46 330) of women positive for HPV16/18 at baseline, including 0.32% (89/28 003) of women with HPV16/18 and negative cytology. Women with HPV types not 16/18 and negative or low grade cytology at both baseline and 12 months were at low risk of serious disease (3.4% CIN grade 3 or worse; 0.02% cancer; n=20 019) but estimated to account for 62.0% of referrals for this screening algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Colposcopy referral thresholds need to consider underlying cancer risk; on this basis, women with HPV16/18 in the first round of HPV screening were found to be at higher risk regardless of cytology result, even in a previously well screened population. Women with HPV types not 16/18 and negative or low grade cytology showed a low risk of serious abnormalities but constitute most referrals and could be managed safely with two rounds of repeat HPV testing rather than one. HPV16/18 driven referrals were low in HPV vaccinated cohorts.

Trends in Co-circulation of Oncogenic HPV Genotypes in Single and Multiple Infections among Unvaccinated Community

Cocirculation of multiple human papillomavirus (HPV) infections with low, probably high, and high‐risk genotypes are to be associated with various grades of infections and cancer progression. The oncogenic high‐risk HPVs are distributed and cocirculated throughout the world. This study was investigated to identify HPV genotypes related to genital disorders in unvaccinated women. The subjects were referred from clinics to a molecular lab for HPV testing in Iran as a low‐coverage vaccinated country. HPVs DNAs of cervical scrapping and genital tissue specimens of 1,133 un‐vaccinated women were genotyped using an in vitro diagnostic line probe (reverse hybridization) assay. In addition, phylogenetic trees were constructed on 100 MY09/MY11 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicons of common genotypes of HPV L1 gene by Sanger sequencing. The mean age of the population study was 32.7 ± 8.0 and the mean age of HPV‐positive cases was 31.6 ± 7.8. HPV DNA was detected in 57.8% (655/1133) of women subjects and 42.2% (478/1133) of cases were undetected. Among 655 HPV‐positive cases, 639 subjects (56.4%) were related to defined genotypes and 16 subjects (1.4%) were untypeable. The highest prevalence rate of HPV genotypes was identified in the 25–34 years. The top 6 dominant HPVs in single and multiple genotypes were HPV6 (284/655 [43.4%]), HPV16 (111/655 [16.9%]), HPV31 (72/655 [11%]), HPV53 (67/655 [10.2%]), HPV11 (62/655 [9.5%]), and HPV52 (62/655 [9.5%]). Moreover, single, multiple and untypeable HPV genotypes were diagnosed as follows: 1 type (318/655 [48.5%]), 2 types (162/655 [24.8%]), 3 types (83/655 [12.7%]), 4 types (42/655 [6.5%]), more than 5 types (34/655 [5.3%]), and 1.4% un‐typeable subjects. The sequenced partial L1 gene of HPV genotypes (GenBank databases under the accession numbers: MH253467‐MH253566) confirmed and determined the cocirculated HPV genotypes' origins and addressed helpful insights into the future viral epidemiology investigations. Multiple HPV infections and cocirculation of various oncogenic HPV genotypes among the normal population (women and men) with asymptomatic forms are still challenging in unvaccinated communities. The preventive and organized surveillance programs for HPV screening are needed to be considered and compiled by health policy makers of low or unvaccinated countries.

Towards the elimination of cervical cancer in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: modelled evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care HPV self-collected screening and treatment in Papua New Guinea

Introduction

WHO has launched updated cervical screening guidelines, including provisions for primary HPV screen-and-treat. Papua New Guinea (PNG) has a high burden of cervical cancer, but no national cervical screening programme. We recently completed the first field trials of a screen-and-treat algorithm using point-of-care self-collected HPV and same-day treatment (hereafter self-collected HPV S&T) and showed this had superior clinical performance and acceptability to visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA). We, therefore, evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and resource implications of a national cervical screening programme using self-collected HPV S&T compared with VIA in PNG.

Methods

An extensively validated platform (‘Policy1-Cervix’) was calibrated to PNG. A total of 38 strategies were selected for investigation, and these incorporated variations in age ranges and screening frequencies and allowed for the identification of the optimal strategy across a wide range of possibilities. A selection of strategies that were identified as being the most effective and cost-effective were then selected for further investigation for longer-term outcomes and budget impact estimation. In the base case, we assumed primary HPV testing has a sensitivity to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2+) + of 91.8% and primary VIA of 51.5% based on our earlier field evaluation combined with evidence from the literature. We conservatively assumed HPV sampling and testing would cost US$18. Costs were estimated from a service provider perspective based on data from local field trials and local consultation.

Results

Self-collected HPV S&T was more effective and more cost-effective than VIA. Either twice or thrice lifetime self-collected HPV S&T would be cost-effective at 0.5× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: US$460–US$656/life-years saved; 1GDPper-capita: US$2829 or PGK9446 (year 2019)) and could prevent 33 000–42 000 cases and 23 000–29 000 deaths in PNG over the next 50 years, if scale-up reached 70% coverage from 2023.

Conclusion

Self-collected HPV S&T was effective and cost-effective in the high-burden, low-resource setting of PNG, and, if scaled-up rapidly, could prevent over 20 000 deaths over the next 50 years. VIA screening was not effective or cost-effective. These findings support, at a country level, WHO updated cervical screening guidelines and indicate that similar approaches could be appropriate for other low-resource settings.

Perspectives on Self-Sampling for Cancer Screening From Staff at Federally Qualified Health Centers in Rural and Segregated Counties: A Preliminary Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Self-sampling for colorectal and cervical cancer screening can address the observed geographic disparities in cancer burden by alleviating barriers to screening participation, such as access to primary care. This preliminary study examines qualitative themes regarding cervical and colorectal cancer self-sampling screening tools among federally qualified health center clinical and administrative staff in underserved communities.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with clinical or administrative employees (≥18 years of age) from FQHCs in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Data were managed and analyzed using QSR NVivo 12. Content analysis was used to identify themes about attitudes towards self-sampling for cancer screening.

RESULTS

Eight interviews were conducted. Average participant age was 42 years old and 88% of participants were female. Participants indicated that a shared advantage for both colorectal and cervical cancer self-sampling tests was their potential to increase screening rates by simplifying the screening process and offering an alternative to those who decline traditional screening. A shared disadvantage to self-sampling was the potential for inaccurate sample collection, either through the test itself or the sample collection by the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling offers a promising solution to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening in rural and racially segregated communities. This study's findings can guide future research and interventions which integrate self-sampling screening into routine primary care practice.

Impact of disruptions and recovery for established cervical screening programs across a range of high-income country program designs, using COVID-19 as an example: A modelled analysis

COVID-19 has disrupted cervical screening in several countries, due to a range of policy-, health-service and participant-related factors. Using three well-established models of cervical cancer natural history adapted to simulate screening across four countries, we compared the impact of a range of standardised screening disruption scenarios in four countries that vary in their cervical cancer prevention programs. All scenarios assumed a 6- or 12-month disruption followed by a rapid catch-up of missed screens. Cervical screening disruptions could increase cervical cancer cases by up to 5-6%. In all settings, more than 60% of the excess cancer burden due to disruptions are likely to have occurred in women aged less than 50 years in 2020, including settings where women in their 30s have previously been offered HPV vaccination. Approximately 15-30% of cancers predicted to result from disruptions could be prevented by maintaining colposcopy and precancer treatment services during any disruption period. Disruptions to primary screening had greater adverse effects in situations where women due to attend for screening in 2020 had cytology (vs. HPV) as their previous primary test. Rapid catch-up would dramatically increase demand for HPV tests in 2021, which it may not be feasible to meet because of competing demands on the testing machines and reagents due to COVID tests. These findings can inform future prioritisation strategies for catch-up that balance potential constraints on resourcing with clinical need.

Cervical Cancer Screening Postpandemic: Self-Sampling Opportunities to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer

The persisting burden of cervical cancer in underserved populations and low-resource regions worldwide, worsened by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, requires proactive strategies and expanded screening options to maintain and improve screening coverage and its effects on incidence and mortality from cervical cancer. Self-sampling as a screening strategy has unique advantages from both a public health and individual patient perspective. Some of the barriers to screening can be mitigated by self-sampling, and resources can be better allocated to patients at the highest risk of developing cervical cancer. This review summarizes the implementation options for self-sampling and associated challenges, evidence in support of self-sampling, the available devices, and opportunities for expansion beyond human papillomavirus testing.

A Framework for Cervical Cancer Elimination in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review and Roadmap for Interventions and Research Priorities

The World Health Organization announced an ambitious call for cervical cancer elimination worldwide. With existing prevention and treatment modalities, cervical cancer elimination is now within reach for high-income countries. Despite limited financing and capacity constraints in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), prevention and control efforts can be supported through integrated services and new technologies. We conducted this scoping review to outline a roadmap toward cervical cancer elimination in LMICs and highlight evidence-based interventions and research priorities to accelerate cervical cancer elimination. We reviewed and synthesized literature from 2010 to 2020 on primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention strategies. In addition, we conducted expert interviews with gynecologic and infectious disease providers, researchers, and LMIC health officials. Using these data, we developed a logic model to summarize the current state of science and identified evidence gaps and priority research questions for each prevention strategy. The logic model for cervical cancer elimination maps the needs for improved collaboration between policy makers, production and supply, healthcare systems, providers, health workers, and communities. The model articulates responsibilities for stakeholders and visualizes processes to increase access to and coverage of prevention methods. We discuss the challenges of contextual factors and highlight innovation needs. Effective prevention methods include HPV vaccination, screening using visual inspection and HPV testing, and thermocoagulation. However, vaccine coverage remains low in LMICs. New strategies, including single-dose vaccination could enhance impact. Loss to follow-up and treatment delays could be addressed by improved same-day screen-and-treat technologies. We provide a practical framework to guide cervical cancer elimination in LMICs. The scoping review highlights existing and innovative strategies, unmet needs, and collaborations required to achieve elimination across implementation contexts.

Cervical screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: optimising recovery strategies

Disruptions to cancer screening services have been experienced in most settings as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally, programmes would resolve backlogs by temporarily expanding capacity; however, in practice, this is often not possible. We aim to inform the deliberations of decision makers in high-income settings regarding their cervical cancer screening policy response. We caution against performance measures that rely solely on restoring testing volumes to pre-pandemic levels because they will be less effective at mitigating excess cancer diagnoses than will targeted measures. These measures might exacerbate pre-existing inequalities in accessing cervical screening by disregarding the risk profile of the individuals attending. Modelling of cervical screening outcomes before and during the pandemic supports risk-based strategies as the most effective way for screening services to recover. The degree to which screening is organised will determine the feasibility of deploying some risk-based strategies, but implementation of age-based risk stratification should be universally feasible.

Will COVID-19 Be the Tipping Point for Primary HPV Self-sampling?

Self-sampling is poised to be a disruptor for cervical screening. So far, cancer screening has been a causality of COVID-19; however, the opposite may transpire for self-sampling. Self-sampling enables socially distanced cervical screening with an outreach that extends to underserved populations. As evidence mounts that self-sampling is noninferior to clinician-taken samples, the focus for self-sampling is now as a primary screening option for all women. Now, we have evidence from a modeling study (using Australia as an exemplar) to suggest that program effectiveness with primary self-sampling would be better than the current program, even if sensitivity is lower. Regulatory issues, suitable triage strategies, and clear communication about self-sampling are hurdles yet to be overcome. Nevertheless, existing evidence coupled with COVID-19 could be the tipping point for wider introduction of self-sampling.See related article by Smith et al., p. 268.